000878143 001__ 878143
000878143 005__ 20210130005414.0
000878143 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1093/brain/awaa146
000878143 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a0006-8950
000878143 0247_ $$2ISSN$$a1460-2156
000878143 0247_ $$2Handle$$a2128/25406
000878143 0247_ $$2altmetric$$aaltmetric:84946767
000878143 0247_ $$2pmid$$apmid:32601678
000878143 0247_ $$2WOS$$aWOS:000574306600029
000878143 037__ $$aFZJ-2020-02656
000878143 082__ $$a610
000878143 1001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)162183$$aBonkhoff, Anna K$$b0$$eCorresponding author
000878143 245__ $$aBringing proportional recovery into proportion: Bayesian modelling of post-stroke motor impairment
000878143 260__ $$aOxford$$bOxford Univ. Press$$c2020
000878143 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000878143 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000878143 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article$$bjournal$$mjournal$$s1596106763_8113
000878143 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000878143 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000878143 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000878143 520__ $$aAccurate predictions of motor impairment after stroke are of cardinal importance for the patient, clinician, and healthcare system. More than 10 years ago, the proportional recovery rule was introduced by promising that high-fidelity predictions of recovery following stroke were based only on the initially lost motor function, at least for a specific fraction of patients. However, emerging evidence suggests that this recovery rule is subject to various confounds and may apply less universally than previously assumed. Here, we systematically revisited stroke outcome predictions by applying strategies to avoid confounds and fitting hierarchical Bayesian models. We jointly analysed 385 post-stroke trajectories from six separate studies—one of the largest overall datasets of upper limb motor recovery. We addressed confounding ceiling effects by introducing a subset approach and ensured correct model estimation through synthetic data simulations. Subsequently, we used model comparisons to assess the underlying nature of recovery within our empirical recovery data. The first model comparison, relying on the conventional fraction of patients called ‘fitters’, pointed to a combination of proportional to lost function and constant recovery. ‘Proportional to lost’ here describes the original notion of proportionality, indicating greater recovery in case of a more severe initial impairment. This combination explained only 32% of the variance in recovery, which is in stark contrast to previous reports of >80%. When instead analysing the complete spectrum of subjects, ‘fitters’ and ‘non-fitters’, a combination of proportional to spared function and constant recovery was favoured, implying a more significant improvement in case of more preserved function. Explained variance was at 53%. Therefore, our quantitative findings suggest that motor recovery post-stroke may exhibit some characteristics of proportionality. However, the variance explained was substantially reduced compared to what has previously been reported. This finding motivates future research moving beyond solely behaviour scores to explain stroke recovery and establish robust and discriminating single-subject predictions.
000878143 536__ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572$$a572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)$$cPOF3-572$$fPOF III$$x0
000878143 588__ $$aDataset connected to CrossRef
000878143 7001_ $$00000-0003-0714-8545$$aHope, Thomas$$b1
000878143 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)136848$$aBzdok, Danilo$$b2
000878143 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aGuggisberg, Adrian G$$b3
000878143 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aHawe, Rachel L$$b4
000878143 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aDukelow, Sean P$$b5
000878143 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)165784$$aRehme, Anne K$$b6
000878143 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)131720$$aFink, Gereon R$$b7$$ufzj
000878143 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)161406$$aGrefkes, Christian$$b8
000878143 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aBowman, Howard$$b9
000878143 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)1474117-9$$a10.1093/brain/awaa146$$gVol. 143, no. 7, p. 2189 - 2206$$n7$$p2189 - 2206$$tBrain$$v143$$x1460-2156$$y2020
000878143 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/878143/files/Bonkhoff_2020_Post%20Print_Brain_Bringing%20Proportional%20Recovery%20into%20Proportion-1.pdf$$yPublished on 2020-06-29. Available in OpenAccess from 2021-06-29.
000878143 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/878143/files/Bonkhoff_2020_Supplemental%20materials_Brain.docx$$yPublished on 2020-06-29. Available in OpenAccess from 2021-06-29.
000878143 8564_ $$uhttps://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/878143/files/Bonkhoff_2020_Post%20Print_Brain_Bringing%20Proportional%20Recovery%20into%20Proportion-1.pdf?subformat=pdfa$$xpdfa$$yPublished on 2020-06-29. Available in OpenAccess from 2021-06-29.
000878143 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:878143$$pdnbdelivery$$pdriver$$pVDB$$popen_access$$popenaire
000878143 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)162183$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b0$$kFZJ
000878143 9101_ $$0I:(DE-HGF)0$$6P:(DE-Juel1)162183$$a INM-3$$b0
000878143 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)131720$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b7$$kFZJ
000878143 9101_ $$0I:(DE-588b)5008462-8$$6P:(DE-Juel1)161406$$aForschungszentrum Jülich$$b8$$kFZJ
000878143 9131_ $$0G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572$$1G:(DE-HGF)POF3-570$$2G:(DE-HGF)POF3-500$$3G:(DE-HGF)POF3$$4G:(DE-HGF)POF$$aDE-HGF$$bKey Technologies$$lDecoding the Human Brain$$v(Dys-)function and Plasticity$$x0
000878143 9141_ $$y2020
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0111$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index Expanded$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0200$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bSCOPUS$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0160$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEssential Science Indicators$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1030$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Life Sciences$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1190$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBiological Abstracts$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0600$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bEbsco Academic Search$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0530$$2StatID$$aEmbargoed OpenAccess
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0100$$2StatID$$aJCR$$bBRAIN : 2018$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)9910$$2StatID$$aIF >= 10$$bBRAIN : 2018$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0150$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bWeb of Science Core Collection$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0110$$2StatID$$aWoS$$bScience Citation Index$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1110$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bCurrent Contents - Clinical Medicine$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0030$$2StatID$$aPeer Review$$bASC$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0310$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bNCBI Molecular Biology Database$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)1050$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bBIOSIS Previews$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0300$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bMedline$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0320$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bPubMed Central$$d2020-01-16
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0420$$2StatID$$aNationallizenz$$d2020-01-16$$wger
000878143 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0199$$2StatID$$aDBCoverage$$bClarivate Analytics Master Journal List$$d2020-01-16
000878143 920__ $$lyes
000878143 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406$$kINM-3$$lKognitive Neurowissenschaften$$x0
000878143 980__ $$ajournal
000878143 980__ $$aVDB
000878143 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED
000878143 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406
000878143 9801_ $$aFullTexts